Jeff,
I agree with your synopsis, but I would add a few points. I do not know if the Greer spike was easier to manufacture. It was a different manufacturing process that may or may not have been cheaper than conventional forging. In his patent, Greer mentioned that he would patent the details of the manufacturing process separately. The manufacturing process dicated that the spike have an extra head, and that the conventional puller be placed parallel with the rail rather than perpendicular to it as is typical, and that the puller be placed on the rail for support.
Greer made claims of advantages for this unique use of the puller, but I get the impression that he was reaching for them in order to justify the unconventional use of the puller, which was in fact dictated by the spike manufacturing process. As has been pointed out, there were significant disadvantages to Greer’s unconventional use of the puller.
My assumption is that the development of the “F” puller was to pull Greer spikes with the handle perpendicular to the rail, so it would have been placed on the tie like a conventional puller. Therefore, grinding the puller fulcrum to match the rail base would not have been necessary. They might have tried that before the “F” puller was developed. However, grinding two configurations of pullers (right and left hand) plus the ability to smash fingers no matter where they were placed on the handle, I think quickly dispelled Greer’s claim of advantages for placing the puller parallel with the rail. Overall, the Greer spike strikes me a failure.
The only saving grace would have been if the Greer spike were sigificantly cheaper to manufacture. I wonder if it might not have actually been more costly to manufacture. Inventors are always looking for unique ways to do things so they can generate patent claims. This motivation often results in outlandish methods and features that are impractical for manufacture and/or use.
